More stories

  • in

    Viasat won’t replace damaged Americas satellite, moves up financial targets

    Satellite communications giant Viasat expects to meet financial growth targets earlier than expected.
    It won’t need to replace its damaged ViaSat-3 Americas satellite and will file an insurance claim for a little more than half its $750 million value.
    The company said its current and imminent satellite fleet – as well as support from third parties – “will meet the current and future needs” of its key mobility market customers.

    A long-exposure photo shows a trail left by SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket while launching the ViaSat-3 Americas satellite from Florida on April 30, 2023.

    Viasat shares rose on Thursday after the company said it expects to meet financial growth targets earlier than expected and that it won’t need to replace a damaged $750 million communications satellite.
    While Viasat’s investigation into the root cause of the ViaSat-3 Americas satellite malfunction is still ongoing, the company said its current and imminent satellite fleet – as well as support from third parties – “will meet the current and future needs” of its key mobility market customers, despite the lost bandwidth.

    The company “is well-positioned to achieve its financial growth objectives” despite the problem. Viasat expects to be free cash flow positive in the first half of 2025, earlier than the second half of 2025 it previously forecast.
    Viasat stock jumped as much as 15% in premarket trading from its previous close of $15.63 a share.

    Sign up here to receive weekly editions of CNBC’s Investing in Space newsletter.

    The company in July disclosed the malfunction with the recently launched Viasat-3 Americas satellite, also known as “ViaSat-3 F1,” that occurred while deploying the reflector of the spacecraft’s antenna. On Thursday, Viasat said it “expects to recover less than 10% of the planned” communications capability of the satellite.
    The company also expects to finalize a $420 million insurance claim on the ViaSat-3 Americas satellite before the end of the year, representing just over half of the company’s value.
    Separately, Viasat on Thursday confirmed it plans to make a $348 million insurance claim before the end of the year for the I6 F2 backup satellite. The company in August reported that I6 F2’s power system malfunctioned.
    Together, the pair of Viasat insurance claims total $768 million, which industry executives previously expected would roil the specialty space insurance market. More

  • in

    Delta Air Lines profit jumps almost 60% after strong summer

    Delta Air Lines’ profit rose nearly 60% in the third quarter.
    International travel has been a strong spot for carriers.
    Delta came under fire from customers last month when it announced it would make it harder to earn elite frequent flyer status.

    Delta Air Lines’ profit rose nearly 60% in the third quarter as strong travel demand continued through the summer, particularly for international trips, though the carrier forecast full-year earnings toward the low end of an earlier estimate after a jump in fuel prices.
    In its quarterly report Thursday, Delta said it expects adjusted, full-year earnings of $6 to $6.25 a share, after forecasting $6 to $7 a share in July. Delta cut its free cash flow estimate for the year to $2 billion from the $3 billion it forecast in the summer.

    Delta said that it expects solid travel demand in the last three months of the year, estimating revenue will rise 9% to 12% from the same quarter of 2022, with per-share earnings of $1.05 to $1.30, in line with estimates.
    “We expect many of the same trends to continue in the fourth quarter,” CEO Ed Bastian said in a CNBC interview.

    An Airbus A330-323 aircraft, operated by Delta Air Lines.
    Benoit Tessier | Reuters

    Delta and other airlines trimmed their third-quarter forecasts in recent weeks because of a surge in fuel prices.
    “Obviously there’s some short-term pressure on fuel as fuel rose quickly in the third quarter and stayed relatively high into the fourth quarter,” Bastian noted.
    Here’s how Delta performed in the three months ended Sept. 30 compared with Wall Street expectations based on consensus estimates from LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv:

    Adjusted earnings per share: $2.03 cents vs. $1.95 expected.
    Adjusted revenue: $14.55 billion vs. $14.56 billion expected.

    Delta brought in adjusted revenue of nearly $14.6 billion for the period, up 13% year over year and in line with analysts’ expectations.
    Net income for the period was $1.11 billion, or $1.72 per share, up 59% from $695 million, or $1.08 per share, during the same period a year earlier. Adjusted for third-party refinery sales and other items, the company earned $2.03 during the quarter.
    Delta and other global airlines have cited particularly strong demand for trips abroad, with trans-Atlantic travel a standout. The Atlanta-based carrier reported revenue for those flights was up 34% in the third quarter compared with last year.
    Delta’s planes flew 88% full in the quarter, up 1 percentage point from the year-earlier period, despite additional capacity both domestically and internationally. Unit revenue from passengers fell 1.5%, year over year. Airfares have dropped in recent months as airlines grew their schedules.
    In addition to a surge in international trips, the carrier has said it has seen a sharp increase in demand for premium seats, like business class or premium economy. Main cabin revenue came in at $6.62 billion, up 12% on the year, while premium product sales rose 17% to $5.11 billion, Delta said.
    “I know the lower-fare airlines are having some challenges but our premium product, especially domestically is doing very, very well,” Bastian said in the interview. He added that business travel is more than 80% recovered to 2019 levels.
    Delta came under fire from customers last month when it announced it would make it harder to earn elite frequent flyer status and said it will scale back access to its popular airport lounges after travelers experienced long entry lines. Weeks later, Bastian said the carrier would make changes to those new policies, which he said might have gone “too far.”
    Bastian declined to provide details but said changes could be announced in the “coming days.”
    “Customers almost universally understand we had to do something given the significant demand for our premium assets,” he said.
    Delta executives are scheduled to hold a call with analysts and media at 10 a.m. ET.
    United Airlines and American Airlines are scheduled to report third-quarter results next week. More

  • in

    Walgreens profit outlook comes up short as demand declines for Covid vaccines and tests

    Walgreens offered soft profit guidance and reported fiscal fourth-quarter earnings that fell short of expectations, as demand for Covid vaccines and tests sinks in the U.S. 
    The retail pharmacy giant has now underperformed Wall Street’s adjusted earnings expectations for two straight quarters.
    Walgreens expects full-year adjusted earnings per share of $3.20 to $3.50 in the coming fiscal year, which is lower than analysts’ estimate of $3.72.

    A sign displays the types of COVID-19 vaccination doses available at a Walgreens mobile bus clinic on June 25, 2021 in Los Angeles, California.
    Mario Tama | Getty Images

    Walgreens on Thursday offered soft profit guidance and reported fiscal fourth-quarter earnings that fell short of expectations, as demand for Covid vaccines and tests sinks in the U.S. 
    The retail pharmacy giant – squeezed by the transition out of the Covid pandemic, a leadership shake-up, its wobbly push into health-care and recent labor pressure from pharmacy staff – has now underperformed Wall Street’s adjusted earnings expectations for two straight quarters. The last time Walgreens posted a consecutive earnings miss was nearly a decade ago.

    The company said it expects adjusted earnings per share of $3.20 to $3.50 in the coming fiscal year, which is lower than analysts’ estimate of $3.72. Walgreens expects lower Covid-related sales, along with a higher tax rate and lower sale and leaseback contributions, to offset earnings growth. 
    Walgreens also sees revenue for the year at $141 billion to $145 billion. Wall Street analysts estimated sales of more than $144 billion.
    Here’s what Walgreens reported compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG, formerly known as Refinitiv:

    Earnings per share: 67 cents adjusted vs. 69 cents expected
    Revenue: $35.42 billion vs. $34.78 billion expected

    The company reported a net loss of $180 million, or 21 cents per share, for the fiscal fourth quarter. That compares with a net loss of $415 million, or 48 cents per share, during the same period a year ago. Excluding certain items, adjusted earnings per share were 67 cents for the quarter. 
    Walgreens booked sales of $35.42 billion in the quarter, which is up roughly 9% from the same period a year ago due to growth in its U.S. retail pharmacy and international business segments. 

    Sales in the company’s U.S. health-care division also grew. Walgreens noted in a release that it is “intently focused on accelerating” that segment’s profitability moving forward. 
    The quarterly results come two days after Walgreens named health-care industry veteran Tim Wentworth as its new CEO following the abrupt departure of the company’s former top executive, Roz Brewer, last month. Wentworth, who will take over on Oct. 23, is tasked with steering the retail pharmacy giant out of a rough spot. 
    Walgreens has made significant investments to transform from a major drugstore chain to a large health-care company. But the pharmacy chain is facing a number of challenges in that transition, including a profit squeeze due to softer consumer spending and declining demand for Covid products as patients emerge from the pandemic.
    Walgreens is also facing an open revolt among pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, several of whom staged a three-day walkout this week to protest chronic understaffing and other poor working conditions. 
    Shares of Walgreens have dropped more than 39% for the year, putting the company’s market value at $19.51 billion. 

    Three segments post sales growth

    Walgreens’ U.S. retail pharmacy segment generated $27.66 billion in sales in the fiscal fourth quarter, an increase of 3.7% from the same period last year. Comparable sales at individual locations rose 5.7%. 
    Pharmacy sales for the quarter increased 6.4% compared with the fiscal fourth quarter of 2022, with comparable sales up more than 9% due to price inflation in brand medications and mix impacts.
    Total prescriptions filled in the quarter, including immunizations, decreased by 0.5% to 297 million. Walgreens cited a weaker respiratory virus season this fall, which is blunting demand for medications and vaccines. 
    Retail sales for the quarter decreased 4.3% compared with the same period a year ago, and comparable retail sales fell 3.3%. 

    CNBC Health & Science

    Read CNBC’s latest health coverage:

    Meanwhile, the company’s international segment racked up $5.78 billion in sales in the fiscal fourth quarter, which is up more than 12% from the same period a year ago. 
    Sales in Walgreens’ U.S. health-care segment came in at $1.97 billion, up from $622 million for the same period last year. Its operating loss narrowed to $294 million from $338 million.
    Primary-care provider VillageMD, which includes urgent-care provider Summit Health, saw revenue grow by 17%. Walgreens said that reflects “existing clinic growth and clinic footprint expansion” of VillageMD, which has a network of hundreds of full-service doctors offices across the U.S. 
    Sales at CareCentrix, which coordinates home care for patients after they’re discharged from the hospital, increased 24% due to additional service offerings and expansion into additional markets. 
    The health-care segment took a loss of $30 million in the quarter before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, compared to a loss of $133 million during the same period a year ago. Walgreens said that “improvement” was driven by growth at CareCentrix and Shields Health Solutions, a specialty pharmacy company included in the health care segment. 
    Walgreens will hold an earnings call with investors at 8:30 a.m. ET on Thursday.
    – CNBC’s Robert Hum contributed to this article.
    Correction: Walgreens’ total prescriptions filled in the quarter, including immunizations, decreased by 0.5% to 297 million. An earlier version misstated a figure. More

  • in

    UAW launches strike against Ford’s Kentucky truck plant, signaling major escalation in labor fight

    United Auto Workers has unexpectedly expanded its U.S. strikes at Ford Motor to a highly profitable SUV and truck plant for the automaker in Kentucky.
    The strike was effective at 6:30 p.m. ET Wednesday at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant, where it employs 8,700 UAW members to produce Ford Super Duty pickups and the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator SUVS.

    United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain, middle, visits striking UAW Local 551 workers outside a Ford assembly center on South Burley Avenue on Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023, in Chicago. 
    John J. Kim | Tribune News Service | Getty Images

    DETROIT — The United Auto Workers union launched an unexpected strike against Ford Motor at the automaker’s highly profitable SUV and pickup truck plant in Kentucky.
    The strike was effective at 6:30 p.m. ET Wednesday at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant, where the automaker produces Ford Super Duty pickups as well as the Ford Expedition and the Lincoln Navigator SUVs. The facility employs 8,700 UAW members.

    The strike at the plant — Ford’s largest in terms of employment and revenue — marks a major escalation in the UAW’s targeted, or “stand-up,” strikes. It also represents a shift in strategy now in the fourth week of expanded strikes. For previous work strikes, UAW President Shawn Fain has publicly announced the targets before the work stoppages occur.
    A Ford source said the union informed the company early Wednesday afternoon that it wanted a new economic counteroffer by 5 p.m. ET, followed by a meeting request for 5:30 p.m. ET with the UAW’s entire Ford bargaining committee, including Fain and union Vice President Chuck Browning.
    The source, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because the talks were private, said the meeting lasted less than 10 minutes before Fain declared that the company had “lost Kentucky Truck.”
    “The strike was called after Ford refused to make further movement in bargaining,” the union said in a release. “The surprise move marks a new phase in the UAW’s Stand Up Strike.”
    A UAW source with knowledge of the talks said Ford did not add any additional cash to its proposed deal, which provoked the strike escalation. The source added the union was expecting Ford to enhance its prior economic offer.

    John Bi assembles a Ford truck at the new Louisville Ford truck plant in Louisville, Kentucky.
    Bryan Woolston | Reuters

    Ford said the “decision by the UAW to call a strike at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant is grossly irresponsible but unsurprising given the union leadership’s stated strategy of keeping the Detroit 3 wounded for months through ‘reputational damage’ and ‘industrial chaos.'” 
    The latter part of the statement refers to leaked private messages last month in which UAW communications director Jonah Furman discussed the union’s public posturing of issues and targeted strikes as causing “recurring reputations damage and operational chaos” to the automakers.
    The companies have argued the messages, as well as the union’s actions, show UAW negotiators were never actually interested in reaching a deal with the Detroit automakers.
    “We have been crystal clear, and we have waited long enough, but Ford has not gotten the message,” Fain said in a statement Wednesday. “It’s time for a fair contract at Ford and the rest of the Big Three. If they can’t understand that after four weeks, the 8,700 workers shutting down this extremely profitable plant will help them understand it.”
    Ford said the new strike puts at risk approximately a dozen additional operations at the automaker and “many more supplier operations that together employ well over 100,000 people.”
    Ford said it had presented an “outstanding offer” and “has been bargaining in good faith this week on joint venture battery plants,” which have been a recent focus of the talks.

    General Motors last week agreed to include workers at its electric vehicle battery plant in the company’s national contract with the union, which Fain called a “transformative win.”
    Fain said the union expects Chrysler parent Stellantis and Ford to follow suit, including battery plant workers in eventual contract agreements.
    The UAW has been gradually increasing the strikes since the work stoppages began after the sides failed to reach tentative agreements by Sept 14.
    The additional workers brings UAW’s total to about 34,000 U.S. workers, or roughly 23% of UAW members covered by the expired contracts with the Detroit automakers, who are currently on strike.
    Fain will give bargaining updates and potentially announce further strikes at 10 a.m. Friday online, the union said Wednesday night. More

  • in

    Former Barclays CEO Staley fined and banned by UK regulator over Epstein links

    U.K. regulator the Financial Conduct Authority announced on Thursday that it had decided to fine Staley £1.8 million ($2.21 million) and ban him from holding a senior management or significant influence function in the sector.
    Staley stepped down as CEO of the British lender in November 2021 following the findings of an initial FCA probe into his characterization of his ties with the disgraced former financier.

    Jes Staley, former CEO of Barclays, arrives at the offices of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in New York on June 11, 2023.
    Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    LONDON — Former Barclays CEO Jes Staley on Thursday was fined and banned from holding any position of influence in the U.K. financial services industry for misleading the regulator over his relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
    U.K. regulator the Financial Conduct Authority announced on Thursday that it had decided to fine Staley £1.8 million ($2.21 million) and ban him from holding a senior management or significant influence function in the sector.

    The FCA found that Staley “recklessly approved” a letter sent by Barclays to the regulator that contained two misleading statements about the nature of his relationship with Epstein and the point of their last contact.
    Therese Chambers, joint executive director of enforcement and market oversight at the FCA, said in a statement Thursday that a CEO “needs to exercise sound judgment and set an example to staff at their firm.”
    “Mr Staley failed to do this. We consider that he misled both the FCA and the Barclays Board about the nature of his relationship with Mr Epstein,” Chambers said.
    “Mr Staley is an experienced industry professional and held a prominent position within financial services. It is right to prevent him from holding a senior position in the financial services industry if we cannot rely on him to act with integrity by disclosing uncomfortable truths about his close personal relationship with Mr Epstein.”
    Staley stepped down as CEO of the British lender in November 2021 following the findings of an initial FCA probe into his characterization of his ties with the disgraced former financier, who died by suicide in Manhattan’s Metropolitan Correctional Center after being charged with child sex trafficking.

    The FCA asked Barclays in August 2019 to explain what it had done to satisfy itself that there was no impropriety in the relationship between the two men, and Staley approved a letter suggesting that they did not have a close relationship.
    Emails subsequently emerged in which Staley described Epstein as one of his “deepest” and “most cherished” friends, the FCA confirmed. Barclays’ letter also claimed Staley had ceased contact with Epstein long before he joined the bank in December 2015. He was later discovered to have spoken to Epstein on Oct. 28, 2015. More

  • in

    To beat populists, sensible policymakers must up their game

    Politicos, rejoice. When it comes to elections, next year is a big one. In 2024 the Republicans and Democrats will battle it out in America, of course—but there will also be votes of one sort or another in Algeria, India, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Taiwan, probably Britain, and many more countries besides. All told, as many as 3bn people, in countries producing around a third of global gdp, will have the chance to put an “X” in a box. And in many of these locations, populist politicians are polling well. What would their success mean for the global economy?Economists have long suspected that populists do grave damage. Names such as Salvador Allende in Chile and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy are hardly synonymous with economic competence. By contrast, what you might call “sensible” leaders, including, say, Konrad Adenauer in Germany and Bill Clinton in America, are more often associated with strong growth. New research, forthcoming in the American Economic Review, perhaps the discipline’s most prestigious journal, puts hard numbers on the hunch.The authors, Manuel Funke and Christoph Trebesch of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and Moritz Schularick of the University of Bonn, look at over a century of data. They classify administrations as “populist” or “non-populist” (or what you might call sensible), based on whether the administration’s ideology has an “us-versus-them” flavour. This is inevitably an arbitrary exercise. People will disagree over whether this or that administration should really be classified as populist. Yet their methodology is transparent and backed up by other academic research.Mr Funke and colleagues then look at how various outcomes, including gdp growth and inflation, differ between the two types of regime. The trick is to identify the counterfactual—how a country under a populist government would have done under a more sensible regime. To do this, the authors create “doppelganger” administrations, using an algorithm to build an economy that tracks that country’s performance pre-populist governance. During Berlusconi’s tenure as prime minister for much of 2001 to 2011, for instance, the authors compare Italy’s economy to a phantom Italy mostly comprised of Cyprus, Luxembourg and Peru. The three countries share characteristics with the world’s eighth-largest economy, including a heavy reliance on international trade.Having identified 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020, the authors find striking results. For two to three years there is little difference in the path of real gdp between countries under populist and sensible leadership. For a time, it may seem as though it is possible to demonise your opponents and run roughshod over property rights without all that much consequence. Yet a gap eventually appears, perhaps as foreign investors start to look elsewhere. Fifteen years after a populist government has entered office, the authors find that gdp per person is a painful 10% lower than in the sensible counterfactual. Ratios of public debt to gdp are also higher, as is inflation. Populism, the authors firmly establish, is bad for the pocketbook.The results are comforting for those who believe in the importance of honourable politicians doing the right thing. But what if sensibles are not what they used to be? Although Mr Funke and his colleagues cannot judge the record of the most recent populist wave, some examples suggest the gap between sensibles and populists may not be as large as it was. Under President Donald Trump, the American economy largely beat expectations. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stifled free speech in Turkey, but relative to comparable countries, real economic growth has been pretty strong. Under Narendra Modi, India’s economy is roaring ahead: this year its gdp is likely to grow by 6% or so, compared with global growth of around 3%. Under populist leadership, Hungary and Poland are not obviously doing worse than their peers.Given Mr Trump’s tariffs and Mr Erdogan’s unusual monetary policy, it is unlikely that these countries’ relative success is down to smart policymaking. Instead, their relatively strong performance may reflect the fact that countries with sensible leadership are finding growth harder to attain. In the 1960s Western countries, rebuilding from the second world war and with young populations, could hope to hit annual growth rates of 5% or more. The opportunity cost of poor economic management was therefore high. Today, in part because of older populations, potential growth is lower. As a result, the gap in gdp growth between a competent and an incompetent administration may be smaller.Yet sensible politicians are also dropping the ball. In the past they promised voters higher incomes, said how they would deliver them and then implemented the necessary policies. These days, politicians across the oecd club of mostly rich countries pledge half as many pro-growth policies as they did in the 1990s, according to your columnist’s analysis of data from the Manifesto Project, a research project. They also implement fewer: by the 2010s product- and labour-market reforms had practically ground to a halt. Meanwhile, politicians have put enormous blocks in the way of housing construction, helping raise costs and constraining productivity growth. Many focus their attention on pleasing elderly voters through generous pensions and funding for health care.Shades of greyPopulists are themselves unlikely to solve any of these problems. But what are the sensibles offering as an alternative? Technocratic, moderate governments need to regain their growth advantage. After all, a belief that maverick politicians will damage the economy is one of the main things standing in the way of more people voting for them. If scepticism about the economic competence of sensible governments deepens, it may seem like less of a risk to vote for a headbanger. Although, over the long sweep of history, economists are right to mock the economic policies of populists, today the sensibles need to get their house in order, too. ■Read more from Free exchange, our column on economics:To understand America’s job market, look beyond unemployed workers (Oct 5th)Why the state should not promote marriage (Sep 28th)Renewable energy has hidden costs (Sep 21st)For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More

  • in

    Investors should treat analysis of bond yields with caution

    It was james carville, an American political strategist, who said, in an oft-repeated turn of phrase, that if he was reincarnated he would like to return as the bond market, owing to its ability to intimidate everyone. Your columnist would be more specific: he would come back as the yield curve. If the bond market is a frightening force, the yield curve is the apex of the terror. Whichever way it shifts, it seems to cause disturbance.When the yield curve inverted last October, with yields on long-term bonds falling below those on short-term ones, analysts agonised about the signal being sent. After all, inverted curves are often followed by recessions. But now the curve seems to be disinverting rapidly. The widely watched 10-2 spread, which measures the difference between ten- and two-year bond yields, has narrowed markedly. In July two-year yields were as much as 1.1 percentage points above their ten-year equivalents, the biggest gap in 40 years. They have since drawn much closer together, with only 0.3 of a point between the two yields.Since the inversion of the yield curve was taken as such a terrible omen, an investor would be forgiven for thinking that its disinversion would be a positive sign. In fact, a “bear steepener”, a period in which long-term bonds sell off more sharply than short-term bonds (as opposed to a “bull steepener”, in which short-term bonds rally more sharply than long ones), is taken to be another portent of doom in market zoology.Driving the latest scare is the rising term premium, which is often described as the additional yield investors require to hold longer-dated securities, given the extra uncertainty over such extended periods. According to estimates by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, the premium on ten-year bonds has risen by 1.2 percentage points from its lowest level this year, more than explaining the recent surge in long-term yields.In truth, though, the term premium is a nebulous thing, and must be treated with caution. It cannot be measured directly. Instead, as with a surprising number of important economic phenomena, analysts have to tease it out by measuring more concrete parts of the financial system, and seeing what is left over. Estimating the premium for a ten-year bond requires forecasting predicted short-term interest rates for the next decade, and looking at how different they are from the ten-year yield. What remains—however large or small—is the term premium.The difficulties do not stop there. John Cochrane of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution points out that, although risk premiums might be more easily estimated at relatively short maturities, the calculations require more and more assumptions about the future of short-term interest rates as analysts move along the curve. When estimates of the term premium are published, they are not typically accompanied by a margin of error. If they were, the margins would get progressively wider the longer into the future the forecast was conducted.There is also surprisingly little history from which to draw when making assessments of changes in the yield curve or term premium. In the past 40 years, there have been perhaps eight meaningful periods of bear steepening, and only in three of them was the yield curve already inverted. The three instances—in 1990, 2000 and 2008—were followed by recessions, but with widely varying lags.Movements in bond markets are therefore both easy and difficult to explain. They are easy to explain because any number of factors could be driving yields, including the Fed’s quantitative-tightening programme, concerns about the sustainability of American debt and worries of institutional decay. Yet attributing bond yields to one factor in particular is fraught with difficulty. And without more clarity on the causes of a move, inferring the future from the shape of the yield curve becomes more like reading tea leaves than a scientific endeavour.One thing is certain, however. Whatever their cause, and regardless of their composition, rising long-term bond yields are terrible news for American companies that wish to borrow at long time horizons, and borrowers who take out new mortgages that will be linked to 30-year interest rates. The effect on the most sensitive borrowers will become only more painful if yields with long maturities remain at such high levels. For anyone concerned about whether a shifting yield curve or a rising term premium signals a looming recession or a nightmare for markets, these simple realities are a better place to start.■Read more from Buttonwood, our columnist on financial markets: Why investors cannot escape China exposure (Oct 5th)Investors’ enthusiasm for Japanese stocks has gone overboard (Sep 28th)How to avoid a common investment mistake (Sep 21)Also: How the Buttonwood column got its name More

  • in

    Retail investors have a surprising new favourite: Treasury bills

    When treasury bonds (or t-bills) last yielded as much as they do today—5.5%—punters were relieved that the world had not been destroyed by the millennium bug, Destiny’s Child were atop the charts and the dotcom bubble was going strong. The recent surge in yields has been remarkable (see chart).image: The EconomistYet bank depositors are seeing just a fraction of these increases. The average American savings account yields just 0.45%. Investors, too, are missing out. For the first time in over two decades, at the end of last year the return offered by six-month Treasuries overtook the earnings yield of s&p 500 companies.So retail investors are looking elsewhere. Trading platforms have made short-term Treasury products a big part of their offering. Advertisements for Public, one such platform, ask podcast listeners if they are aware of the meagre savings rate on their deposit accounts. Despite only having been available on the platform since March, Treasuries are now its most purchased asset. One in ten new users buy them as their first trade.Demand for Treasuries reflects a broader move towards safe, high-yielding options. Money-market funds invest in low-risk, short-duration instruments, including Treasuries. More than $880bn has been added to such funds this year, bringing their total value to an all-time high of $5.7trn. As with retail short-dated Treasury accounts, money-market funds are attractive to savers because they are highly liquid, meaning that cash can be withdrawn quickly if required.The growing popularity of such alternatives is upsetting the logic of retail banking. Banks get away with providing interest rates well below the interest they receive from short-term government debt because—as Public’s advertisements identify—many depositors pay little attention. By sucking deposits from the banking system, money-market funds are thought to have contributed to financial instability in the spring.Retail-trading platforms’ expansion has made it easier than ever for depositors to transfer funds into short-dated government debt. That may further erode the discount on savings rates that depositors will accept from banks, and make Treasuries a bigger feature in retail-investment portfolios. Savers will, then, be singing along to one of Destiny’s Child’s better tunes: “Bills, Bills, Bills”.■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, finance and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter. More